The answer to God in simple mathematics.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Except that you can theoretically zoom in as far as you want, infinitely.

True (at least if I understand you correctly as saying that given any distance from e.g., 1 in the real interval (0,1), we can get infinitely closer without ever reaching 1). However, it is not true for this:

all rational numbers between 6 & 7.

Even though there are infinitely many rational number between any two rational numbers in the interval (6,7), between any two rational numbers are infinitely many irrational numbers. Thus for the infinite and infinitely dense set of rational numbers defined over some interval at every, single point in this set we MUST stop.

Same with infinity.

Which one?

Infinity's definition is pretty much exactly what I said: go and don't stop.

A large amount of mathematics and physics depends upon the ways in which we can continually add "amounts" to some measure or value or number or whatever infinitely many times and stop.

If there are limits, then it's not infinite.

I apologize, as I don't actually know if you are joking. In case you aren't, Limits are used universally in mathematics (including applied mathematics, mathematical physics, statistics, etc.) to "stop". For example, the limits of infinitely many summations of infinitely many terms result in a specific and unique "stopping" point.

 

[Riverwolf]

True (at least if I understand you correctly as saying that given any distance from e.g., 1 in the real interval (0,1), we can get infinitely closer without ever reaching 1). However, it is not true for this:

Even though there are infinitely many rational number between any two rational numbers in the interval (6,7), between any two rational numbers are infinitely many irrational numbers. Thus for the infinite and infinitely dense set of rational numbers defined over some interval at every, single point in this set we MUST stop.

A large amount of mathematics and physics depends upon the ways in which we can continually add "amounts" to some measure or value or number or whatever infinitely many times and stop.

See, when you challenge my mathematical assertions, I trust that you know what you're talking about, since if I recall, you're actually a mathematician?

But I think this highlights a major part of the problem: to someone like me, both of you look like you're saying the same things at first. This is only because I don't really know the more advanced lingo, as I fully admit that I dropped out of High School Trig. As a result, it would be easy for me to take those words and terms, and apply them in ways that might look all smarty-smart-smart and make sense in my head, but when actually applied to real-world mathematics, don't hold up at all.

I'm not sure if that's what you, @notexceling, but I'm sorry. This:

It's the only language of truth we know.

Every truth you say has an equation with a proper answer.

Seriously reminds me of the opening monologue of the 90s Tekken anime: "The act of fighting is itself a true act... ask your own flesh and blood, because one's flesh is the door to the truth."

Which one?

I only know of the one I speak of.

I apologize, as I don't actually know if you are joking. In case you aren't, Limits are used universally in mathematics (including applied mathematics, mathematical physics, statistics, etc.) to "stop". For example, the limits of infinitely many summations of infinitely many terms result in a specific and unique "stopping" point.

I'm speaking hypothetically more than anything else.

A computer program infinite loop, for example, is only infinite hypothetically; isn't actually infinite, as it's limited by the amount of power going into the machine.

Of course, you can place end points on a line that goes on infinitely, in order to help define boundaries. ( while(key.press != escape) printf("\a"); ) But then you get a line segment; the line itself continues on beyond those points without any end of its own. But if that's not what you're talking about, then I honestly don't really know what you're saying.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I trust that you know what you're talking about

That makes one of us

since if I recall, you're actually a mathematician?

It sort of depends upon who you ask (or more precisely who you ask and how you ask).. As that sounds terribly arcane or esoteric, I'll given a real-life example. I was asked a question maybe a year ago by a statistician (i.e., someone's whose doctorate was in statistics; most of those whose expertise is statistics don't have doctorates in statistics). It concerned (prepare for jargon) the lack of treatment and negative evaluation of fuzzy set theory & fuzzy probability/statistics in statistics journals. Now, I use fuzzy statistics all the time and have read many journal articles on the subject. It wasn't until this question was posed that I realized that, with very few exceptions, all the statistics research and literature about fuzzy sets/fuzzy statistics was in engineering literature, applied mathematics literature, computational sciences, etc. So I proposed that the reason the "real" stats journals don't generally acknowledge the existence of fuzzy probability (and when they do, they do so critically) was because "pure" statisticians are highly concerned with mathematical structure, theory, and research. Meanwhile, most of those who use mathematics care whether or not it works. The statistician agreed (or at least thought that, given his experience, this rang true). The same holds for most mathematicians: mathematical research is very different from research in mathematics: the former is concerned with (almost) purely theoretical issues and even mathematical "beauty" or aesthetics, while mathematicians who work in the sciences tend to be concerned with what works and how well it does.

My work involves mostly mathematics and/or mathematical physics. However, I'm a neuroscientist, not a mathematician. It just happens that my approach is computational, my framework heavily drawn from complex systems research, and much of my work involves mathematical physics.

I fully admit that I dropped out of High School Trig.

I dropped out of high school and didn't figure out I like math until college (when I began to learn that mathematics was really quite fundamentally different from pre-college and freshman/sophomore undergrad mathematics). I think the educational system failed you (and most people).

I only know of the one I speak of.

I started a thread on this recently: Infinities and the Infinite

A computer program infinite loop, for example, is only infinite hypothetically; isn't actually infinite, as it's limited by the amount of power going into the machine.

That's actually a huge area of mathematics research. A lot of mathematics requires iterations (such as infinite summations or "series") that one can use a computer for. However, as you say the computer can't actually perform infinite operations any more than we can. So numerical methods are designed to approximate the results and do so as accurately and efficiently as possible. Every graph you might see of some plot of a function like this:

is an approximation. Pick any point (x, y) on that parabola and there is no next largest number (another way of saying that the real number line is infinitely dense). So computers have to fill in the wholes somehow. This is also true of rational numbers. However, there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational (I think I get into this in the thread linked to above).

Meanwhile, this is just functions that take arguments (x values) that are 1-dimensional. That graph is the familiar 2D Cartesian/ x,y- plane. It extends infinitely along both the x & y axes. Quantum systems "live" in a space that extends infinitely along infinitely many directions.

 

[Riverwolf]

That makes one of us



It sort of depends upon who you ask (or more precisely who you ask and how you ask).. As that sounds terribly arcane or esoteric, I'll given a real-life example. I was asked a question maybe a year ago by a statistician (i.e., someone's whose doctorate was in statistics; most of those whose expertise is statistics don't have doctorates in statistics). It concerned (prepare for jargon) the lack of treatment and negative evaluation of fuzzy set theory & fuzzy probability/statistics in statistics journals. Now, I use fuzzy statistics all the time and have read many journal articles on the subject. It wasn't until this question was posed that I realized that, with very few exceptions, all the statistics research and literature about fuzzy sets/fuzzy statistics was in engineering literature, applied mathematics literature, computational sciences, etc. So I proposed that the reason the "real" stats journals don't generally acknowledge the existence of fuzzy probability (and when they do, they do so critically) was because "pure" statisticians are highly concerned with mathematical structure, theory, and research. Meanwhile, most of those who use mathematics care whether or not it works. The statistician agreed (or at least thought that, given his experience, this rang true). The same holds for most mathematicians: mathematical research is very different from research in mathematics: the former is concerned with (almost) purely theoretical issues and even mathematical "beauty" or aesthetics, while mathematicians who work in the sciences tend to be concerned with what works and how well it does.

My work involves mostly mathematics and/or mathematical physics. However, I'm a neuroscientist, not a mathematician. It just happens that my approach is computational, my framework heavily drawn from complex systems research, and much of my work involves mathematical physics.

Credentials effectively confirmed. ^_^

I dropped out of high school and didn't figure out I like math until college (when I began to learn that mathematics was really quite fundamentally different from pre-college and freshman/sophomore undergrad mathematics). I think the educational system failed you (and most people).

You can say that again. Math has become sort of a pretty bad anxiety trigger for me these days. Three-ish years ago, I had to do a quadratic equation for homework, since I was trying to make up for what I'd lost in college, and even though I knew, and know, exactly how to solve those and have ready access to reference material for review, it triggered an anxiety attack so bad that I ended up on the floor, and didn't recover for days. (Needless to say, that class got dropped.)

Sucks, too, because the specific class I dropped out of had the most awesome teacher ever.

I started a thread on this recently: Infinities and the Infinite

I'll check it out.

That's actually a huge area of mathematics research. A lot of mathematics requires iterations (such as infinite summations or "series") that one can use a computer for. However, as you say the computer can't actually perform infinite operations any more than we can. So numerical methods are designed to approximate the results and do so as accurately and efficiently as possible. Every graph you might see of some plot of a function like this:

is an approximation. Pick any point (x, y) on that parabola and there is no next largest number (another way of saying that the real number line is infinitely dense). So computers have to fill in the wholes somehow. This is also true of rational numbers. However, there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational (I think I get into this in the thread linked to above).

Meanwhile, this is just functions that take arguments (x values) that are 1-dimensional. That graph is the familiar 2D Cartesian/ x,y- plane. It extends infinitely along both the x & y axes. Quantum systems "live" in a space that extends infinitely along infinitely many directions.

And... yeah, you pretty much lost me. ^_^ But again, that's probably more because of the jargon than the concepts. When I was first learning computer programming, the nonsensical jargon was by far the BIGGEST hurdle for me to overcome; having overcome that, the concepts do make sense.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When I was first learning computer programming, the nonsensical jargon was by far the BIGGEST hurdle for me to overcome; having overcome that, the concepts do make sense.

You aren't alone. There's a graduate (nearly doctorate) researcher at Harvard who's a skilled programmer but for whom math provokes extreme anxiety. This is a testimony to how poorly mathematics is taught. After all, as you know programming is very much a matter of reducing some goal that might be easily explained using language to an algorithm via logic (technically, one can't have a non-logical algorithm, but I want to emphasize how much programming involves the use of logic). To program is to work with a formal/logical/mathematical system, and good programmers are good logicians (even if they've never studies logic and to them formal logic appears nothing more than nonsensical symbols and jargon). Mathematics isn't just logic, but logic makes up much of mathematics and is required for all. However, so much math education is simply trying to teach how to manipulate symbols (rationalize algebraic expressions, apply limit/differentiation/integration "rules", and in general rote application of "rules" procedurally to a bunch of symbols).

If one is able to program well, one is capable of or exceeds at using logic. That means one has a great deal of mathematical aptitude, even if only potentially. Most of mathematics up to a certain level of undergrad math is all about computations and acting like a calculator. Real mathematics, whether applied or no, is far closer to the logic required of writing code that works than it is to elementary calculus, trig, etc.

 

[Sunstone]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....
Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one. Potentially an infinite amount, but in truth Only one number does exist
The number "1"

E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
That is because "1" explains itself and every other number.
In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1". Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.

For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".

50% = 1/2 = 0.5 OF 1

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete

1 = 100%
In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )
( <------bound, beginning
) <------end, finish

*****(We predominately do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
or
5 x 4 = 20


One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.
(1) or (100%)
Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.
ANYTHING that can be calculated is.
Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).
If we accept potential infinite (∞) as anything more than the study of (1), it would create the greatest oxymoron in the history of mankind.
How can the boundless and endless concept of infinity be bounded and ended to our universal mathematical governing laws?
(Mathematics is a language created by man to study the already existing calculations (and by studying the language of truth we can answer correctly; 1+1=2 will always be the same and correct, from the start of time to the depth of space)

The symbol I used above is
∞ = infinity.
This is a concept and not a number. It means boundless/endless/Unrestricted and beyond brackets
<----(1)----->
Before we answer what's beyond the brackets, we need to understand another important aspect of (1).
(1) has another restriction
That is because by itself can not do much. It needs a medium or a language to communicate.

multiply x , divide ÷, etc are all fancy and grouped methods of doing the core symbols of maths.

Addition and subtraction
+ -

Just like (1),
(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.

Example
(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)
3 x 2 = 6

Inside every (1) we have (+|-)
E.g
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself.

Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark, Yin Yang for good measure
All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.
Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.
Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.
(+ -) within (1)

Now to make it interesting and go beyond the brackets..........
Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.
My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say
everything = (100)
What would be
1 + (100) = ?
It can not be 101 (commonly the first response)
Reason: Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)

Let me rephrase the question, from my brief explanation above what would be

1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)
????

It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called
Absolute (meaning 100%) Infinity ∞
A CONCEPT (NOT A NUMBER) beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"
So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)

The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+ -) = ∞

Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.

What so special about this equation?
It explain outside of our brackets
God (mathematically known as Absolute infinity) is complete 1=100%
Yet he is incomprehensible ∞

It explains that we have the option of either choosing a + path or - negative
If on the day of judgment
"=" (The day of TOTALLING/Tallying/equal sign)
our good deeds out way our bad

1 + ( + > - ) = + ∞
HEAVEN

Respectively
1 + ( + < -) = - ∞
Hell

LETS GET INTO SCIENCE:
__________________

Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."

So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________

Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.
Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.
__________________

Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
The equation covers this aspect quite easily".
A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.
+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,
And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
_________________

Prisca Theologia
+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta
(∞)=∞ Pantheist, the universe is God
(1)=∞ Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.
( 1 + (+|-) = ∞) Christianity
father 1 = ∞
holy spirit +
son (+|-)
Exterior brackets trinity

(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son)
Even though Jesus can have potentially have an (∞) possibilities within him, he can never be God. That is why he always said the father ∞ is greater than I (1)

Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1
on all whom depend +
he begets not, (+) nor is begotten (-)
(+|-)
and none is like him ∞
---->It is everywhere (on every page in every Surah) in the Quran .<--------

For all those who want to debate about Georg Cantor, he actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)

I'm merely saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed.

To leave you with some food for thought,

We humans are (1) within this Big (1)
Every (1) human is restricted to its experiences ( + - )
Everything (1) that exists is restricted to its own.

For example

We can not imagine what someone else imagines to the exact detail nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your own wiring and experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.

If every human analysed the exact same picture, the picture stored in all our brain will always be uniquely ours and different to everyone else's. ALWAYS.

Nothing outside of your restricted (1) can be contemplated because we are restricted by our unique Addition and Subtraction. (+ -).

This is what I consider is the human mental capacity blind spot.
There is an infinite possible chances of there being other realms out there, but your realm is restricted to you.
I'll try explaining it this way,
If we never communicated ever do I really exist for you or vice versa.
Mathematically yes I am tangible but because you never experience me I would be your mental blind spot.
If you want to go deeper in the rabbit hole….. even though we've contacted each other now and we're communicating, you STILL can't be sure I exist. The only thing you can be sure about is yourself.

That means (+-) everything was made for you (1).

Theres an easy way of proving the world was made only for your experience.

Prostrate and put your head on the ground. Your the centre point of the earth. The highest point.
The earth is round and No matter where on earth you go, you are its focal point of balance. Quite literally your on top of the world……..and the day you reach your appointed time (not me) will be the day the world ends.

I thank you for your time and space (+-)

May ∞ bless you

James

Say, was that a yes or a no answer you gave to god?

 

[notexceling]

Say, was that a yes or a no answer you gave to god?

Yes.

 

[lovemuffin]

Potentially an infinite amount, but in truth Only one number does exist. The number "1"

For an interesting diversion, see Typographical number theory, and the excellent book
Gödel, Escher, Bach